Major Vishal Kumar Singh vs Sunita Yadav

R.C. Khulbe, J

This petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the summoning order dated 14.03.2018 passed by the Fourth Additional CJM, Dehradun in Complaint Case No.3939 of 2017 (Sunita Yadav v. Vishal Kumar Singh) under Sections 406, 504 and 506 IPC.

In a nutshell, facts of the case are that the respondent instituted the complaint case against the applicant with the allegations that in December, 2013 when the applicant was undergoing training in Indian Military Academy (IMA), a proposal of marriage was given to the respondent over phone by the applicant. The parents of the respondent met with the applicant and assured that they would meet the parents of applicant and would finalize the marriage of respondent with the applicant. It was also alleged that the applicant introduced the respondent to the other officers of IMA as his fiancée. Further that on 4.5.2014, applicant took the respondent in a hotel at Dehradun and on the false pretext of marriage, established physical relations with her, and that the applicant also took a sum of Rs.2.85 lakh from the respondent and her father.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available in the file.

It is argued that the applicant has been falsely implicated; a false complaint was lodged by the respondent against the applicant; the applicant is 10 years younger than the respondent; on the same set of allegations, the respondent sent a complaint to the then Defence Minister in the year 2016, whereon, a court of enquiry was set up against the applicant; the respondent appeared before the enquiry proceedings and after evidence in the court of enquiry, all the allegations levelled against the applicant were found to be baseless; thereafter on the same ground, the complaint was filed before the Court below.

Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent argued that on the false pretext of marriage, the applicant established the physical relations with the respondent and he also took a sum of Rs.2.85 lakh from her.

On a perusal of the record, it is evident that the respondent filed the complaint before the then Defence Minister, and under the directions of Headquarter, issued on 4.8.2016, a court of enquiry was set up in which the following officers were nominated: -

Presiding Officer : Maj Somendra Kumar

Members              : (1) Maj Bhadrayya G

(2) Maj Suresh Shullai

In the court of enquiry proceedings, the respondent was summoned and her statement was also recorded. The Court of Inquiry came to the conclusion that there was no evidence available on record to prove that the respondent transferred the amount, in question, in favour of applicant; there was no evidence that on 4.5.2014, the applicant went inside the Room No.253 in Hotel Aakash Deep together with the respondent and established physical relations; there was also no evidence that the applicant invited the respondent in the I.M.A. on the eve of GC Ball and Passing Out Parade; there was also no evidence to the effect that the applicant threatened the respondent with any dire consequence; the Court of Inquiry also opined that the allegations made by the complainant could not be established and thus, no cognizance of the same should be taken.

From a perusal of the record, it is evident that once the Court of Inquiry has been set up against the applicant on the allegations levelled by the respondent and all those allegations were found to be baseless against the applicant, then on the same ground, no complaint, on the same allegations, could be filed before the Court below. Moreover, since these court of enquiry proceedings were not in the notice of the Court below, the Magistrate concerned, on the basis of the statement, summoned the applicant u/s 406, 504 and 506 IPC.

Once the Court of Inquiry has been set up under the Army Act, wherein, all the allegations, levelled against the applicant, were found to be baseless, then the petitioenr cannot be permitted to be summoned on the same allegations by the Trial Court.

In these circumstances, the present petition filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The summoning order dated 14.3.2018 passed by the Fourth Additional C.J.M., Dehradun in Complaint Case No.3939 of 2017, Sunita Yadav v. Vishal Kumar Singh, is hereby quashed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.